Physical presence not necessary for witness examination if VC can facilitate cross-examination: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently observed that a witness need not be physically present before a trial court for cross-examination if it can be effectively conducted through video conferencing [Narayanasamy Vs Balasundaram]..Justice N Anand Venkatesh added that even complex cases involving several documents cannot be kept out of video-conference hearings merely because cross-examination of witnesses may be difficult."A stage has come where any proceedings can be conducted through the VC mode. Several complex arbitration cases involving large turnover and several volumes of documents are being conducted conveniently through the online/VC mode. This is the reason as to why the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026 were notified and the same provide for the procedure to be followed to record the evidence through the VC mode. Hence, the Court below can never dispense with or refuse to conduct examination of witnesses through the VC mode just because the case involves several documents or complex issues," the September 9 ruling said. .The Court can never refuse to conduct examination of witnesses through the VC mode just because the case involves several documents or complex issuesMadras High Court.The Court made the observation while allowing a 72-year-old doctor practising in London to give evidence through video conferencing in a partition suit pending before a Coimbatore court.It dismissed a petition made by the doctor's legal opponents (petitioners), who opposed his cross-examination through video conference and insisted that he should return to India for the trial proceedings. The Court found that the doctor had been in India on several hearing dates, but that the petitioners had not used these opportunities to physically cross-examine him. “It is quite surprising that the petitioners are insisting for the physical presence of the first respondent/plaintiff whereas the petitioners missed the bus when the first respondent/plaintiff was, in fact, present physically in India at least for three hearings," the Court said. .The matter concerned a partition suit in which the plaintiff-doctor had sought a one-third share in certain properties, besides a declaration against an earlier decree and an injunction restraining the alienation of the properties.The plaintiff had been present before the trial court for three hearings for cross-examination. However, he was not cross-examined and his evidence was eventually closed in November 2021. The defendants (petitioners before the High Court) later succeeded in getting the case reopened and the plaintiff recalled for cross-examination.By then, the plaintiff had undergone bypass surgery and had been advised against long-distance travel. He, therefore, sought permission to appear through video conferencing. The trial court allowed the request, prompting two defendants to approach the High Court.The defendants/ petitioners argued that the suit involved allegations of fraud and forgery, several documents and the division of companies. They contended that the plaintiff's physical presence was necessary for effective cross-examination and even offered to bear his travel expenses..The High Court rejected the contention.Justice Venkatesh noted that the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026 prescribe safeguards for conducting proceedings virtually and apply to courts and tribunals across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.The Court further found that the plaintiff's age and medical condition justified his virtual appearance.Therefore, the High Court dismissed both revision petitions filed by the defendants. .Advocates TM Hariharan and GM Ananthakumar represented the petitioners (defendants before the civil court)..Advocate Navaneeth Ragavachari, instructed by Advocate V Srimathi, appeared for the main respondent (doctor/ plaintiff before the civil court). Advocate L Leela Raman represented two other respondents..[Read Judgment]